ST. LOUIS • One of three would-be robbers raised a pistol while his two friends pretended to hide guns under their clothes late Monday night at Forest Park’s Grand Basin, police say.

“Don’t make me kill you,” one of them told an off-duty St. Charles County sheriff’s deputy after approaching him and his female jogging partner, authorities say.

The deputy announced he was a police officer and opened fire, killing Antonio Nash, 18, and wounding the two other men in what police say appeared to be a justifiable shooting.

The deputy, 36, and his friend, 23, were uninjured.

AlanMThere are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAHFour boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.

English Common Law, I think, but the concept is that aiding in a Felony that results in a death comes with a presumption that you acted towards that end. Sorta like holding the hand-cannon while the other guy aimed and fired....

Makes you wonder, btw, about SYG in this instance. Would we be obliged to run away? Short answer, under current law, probably is "maybe". That's why we want SYG, so it's up to the Prosecution to prove that we could, instead of up to us to prove that we couldn't. "You can always drive away" is a really bad idea, as things turn out. Just ask Tony Gordon.....

It's an extension of the "conspiracy" view.... I suppose one could answer that an accomplice might have no idea that the act could result in a fatality, but that may be the only defense.

If you're driving by a 7-11 and your buddy tells you to stop there so he can rob it, the assumption is that you could have prevented it.

If you're driving by, and your buddy says that he wants a pack of cigarettes, you may have a defense.

The logic, if any, is, IMHO/IANAL in the deterrent aspect.

Regards,

I still don't see how anyone can make a logical case for murder here.Deterrent or not the punishment should fit the crime, Just because they're bad people and they should die and rot in hell isn't a great case for over charging.

The way the law is written apparently supports this, However I'm saying the law makes no logical sense, is wrong and unjust.

Most wont agree with me because they did something bad and many are disappointed they wasn't killed outright.The rest probably hope they get 99 years in a hole with no light.

That line of thinking is ruled by raw emotion, An argument we turn on anti's routinely.But I still believe in fair treatment.

There are other charges that can and have been levied against them.

If you can't hit the broad side of a barn, You're not using enough bullets.